If you are an AT&T DSL or U-Verse customer and just so
happen to be an extreme data hog, your reign of terror will soon be over. DSL Reports is indicating that AT&T plans
to implement new data caps on customers starting May 2 (notices will be
sent to customers between March 18 and March 31).

The data caps will be set at 150GB for DSL customers and
250GB for U-Verse customers. As somewhat of a token gesture to customers, the
bandwidth limit can be exceeded twice over the life of your account without ill
effect. However, overage fees will be put in place upon the third time that your
monthly data allotment is exceeded.

Overage fees will be $10 for every 50GB that you go over
the limit. However, AT&T will send notices to customers at the 65, 90, and 100
percent data cap thresholds, so there should be no excuse for customers to not
know when they are approaching their monthly limits.

AT&T already
imposes data limits on its wireless plans, so this move to landline data
connections should come as no surprise. Like its wireless data caps, AT&T
cites a small minority of customers that hog a disproportionate amount of
bandwidth.

"The top 2 percent of residential subscribers uses
about 20 percent of the bandwidth on our network," said AT&T in a
statement to Engadget.
"Just one of these high-traffic users can utilize the same amount of data
capacity as 19 typical households."

If you're used to an all-you-can-eat buffet when it comes to
online video streaming services like Netflix
or Hulu,
it looks as though those days are slowly coming to an end.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I don't buy that. If a paying customer can not use his/her connection at full speed 24/7, it has been over sold. Simple as.

The only reason an ISP would cap data is either becauseA) They can not afford everyone thinking they actually get what they pay for, orB) They want to make some more money by following the trend of every other ISP. And every other ISP just wants to make more money, or see A.

The solution to this problem is to apply the utility model to data access. That means they meter the line, but it also means they can only charge their cost to purchase that access - which is typically three cents, or less, per GB.

All of these overage costs are far in excess of their actual costs of servicing the high-use accounts. They are meant to be punitive to stifle demand for services that they compete against.

Also, AT&T complaining about the top 2% using 20% of the product is actually a typical consumption model for probably every product known to mankind. I am sure AT&T hasn't thought through the idea that trying to meter like a utility also means that they will have to negotiate with EVERY local governing body that they have customers in to set a local price.

C) is MY PLAN :) I did not get any UVerse TV or VOIP services, as I am using third party VoIP, and watching only Netflix and a couple of free TV over IP, so this cap hits me directly.... Even if they let me out of my contract, I have no place to go - Comcast is worst, with the same 250GB cap :(

I'm guessing you have no idea how networks work. The craziness of this post is through the roof. It would be impossible for anyone to afford the sort of backbone it would require to run everyone at reasonable speeds 24/7. On top of that, it would be a giant waste of money as people don't use them 24/7. This would be like building highways to support every driver at once 24/7 or power companies making power for everyone using power 24/7, it is just plain stupid.

On top of the above stated, do you have any idea how shared mediums work? Everyone in the world would need their own pipe everywhere to be able to use the links 24/7. People like you are ridiculous as you don't think about the logistics, just what you think you deserve. As a network engineer, people like you make me cringe.

I think your estimates of affordability are overstated. But, be that as it may, Americans pay some of the highest premiums for only moderate service in comparison to other developed nations and also the service isn't sold to us as 'the first x number of GBs', it is sold as unlimited internet.

I think what raises people's ire is that these very powerful very profitable companies that have no real competition in many markets are cherry picking their customers through deceptive practices. They often engage in tactics that are akin to the hostess at an all you can eat turning people away at the the "all you can eat buffet"...

That's exactly the point of that type of business model. The fact that they are trying to make it a traditional fast food place, like Taco Bell, but still having the buffet prices, and advertising as such, is ridiculous. If you don't want people having/expecting unlimited internet then don't advertise as such. It's such a fucking simple solution yet they don't want to do it. I think caps are stupid as is since bandwidth isn't it terms of GB, it's GBps. If you think of it like the car analogy that someone else mentioned all you have to do is look at rush hour. Doesn't matter if the roads can support most of the cars most of the time. You get too many people out there at once and shit comes to a halt. No amount of data caps can prevent such things from occurring. The only way to relieve it is to build more. The idea that they think they can prevent it from happening is in itself ridiculous.

but then they should not sell something as being unlimited in style and ask for monthly payments, and expect nobody to fully utilize said service ???

So for an unlimited data, which paid for every month, yet some how thats wrong because if someone takes full potential of a service they were sold and pay for ??

Scamming consumers is wrong, if you sell it unlimited be prepared to back that up to being utilized by every customer at is full peak or dont sell something as such when its not a true service to begin with, thats fraudulent.

If every single person went online and decided to fully download data all day long, they have every right to do so, they pay for exactly that service, only the speed up/down is stipulated in their contract.

They should stipulate their is a limit then their would have been no issue, but selling such a item, then bitching about limits later is not a user fault at all, they sold them the line with such conditions attached. So if a person fully uses something they pay for and were sold, they are some how a bad person ???

We get cell phones are sold with monthly minute limits, nobody has issue paying a fee when the know their contract and they go over that limit.

But in this case the contract being sold to hundreds of millions if not billions of users all over the world that stipulation does not exist currently. So someone using bandwidth more then another when the service never implied their is a data cap limit only and up/down speed limit, the ISP is at fault.

Now being sold a plan with a data cap up front sure, everyone understands that, but the issue is they were not sold such type of plan for their home internet use. So the ISP is changing its terms of contract, regardless of the payers agreement to contractual changes thats the real issue here.

The issue is this isn't like an all you can eat buffet. The data being consumed isn't produced by AT&T, Comcast, ect. All they are doing is facilitating its consumption. To stick with a food example, though still not good, it would be more like setting up a table with plates and flatware, letting you get your own food, and then telling you you can only eat X amount.

Lucky for me I don't have to estimate, I have worked for AT&T, I have worked on many business networks. I know plenty of people who work for carriers and I am starting with a carrier to help deploy a ground up MPLS network. I have priced out equipment from the lowly to the carrier grade, I know what it costs. I have priced out fiber runs and cable runs, I know what they cost.

I have had to make tough decisions on how to properly use bandwidth when the customers can't buy more. I have had to play queuing and shaping games to make bandwidth go further. I have spent weeks working with carriers to stretch a little bandwidth further when a customer was having hard peaks but averages were low. The dumb answer was always "just buy more bandwidth", but it doesn't work that way in the real world.

I am not sticking up for AT&T, they are a terrible company with horrid customer service, but you can thank the government for the monopolies as they sponsored them. AT&T is just doing what anyone would do with that sort of leverage, using it to their advantage. If they don't make more money, the stock holders will just fire the CEO and assign someone who will.

The real fix is competition. AT&T should have made a better decision than imposing hard limits with charges for going over, but they had to do something and they aren't going to rerun thousands of miles of cable, especially since it takes a literal act of congress for anyone to run them.

Lastly, if they put it in the contract and you sign up for the service, they aren't screwing you, they are merely giving you what you signed for.

You are the type of scumbag lying corporate shitkicker I throw up of - your claims are just fuckin' FALSE.

FYI Time Warner made some $4 BILLION, out of which their bandwidth costs were $130 MILLION - yes million.

Your point about network infrasctructure is even more stupid: THAT'S THEIR FUCKIN BUSINESS, it's already been covered.

Lastly if you have ever been a network engineer at this level you would VERY WELL FUCKIN KNOW THAT ANY TIER #1 HOSTING PROVIDER GIVES YOU CLEAR, 24/7 BANDWIDTH, you lying clueless fuck - they are essentially underselling their bandwidth, unlike your greedy, lying PoS paymasters.

quote: People like you are ridiculous as you don't think about the logistics, just what you think you deserve. As a network engineer, people like you make me cringe.

How about receiving you have paid for? Is it a crime against humanity to expect a company to live up to a service that it was certainly willing to sell? If AT&T has to cap its bandwidth, then that's fine. Just don't sell it to your customers as something entirely different.

You paid for "up to **mbits/s". On top of that, if you accept the terms of service stating you cannot exceed the limit they add, then you can go with another carrier or complain. It is their product, they can sell it however they wish and you are free not to buy it. I don't know how everyone extrapolates "up to **mbits/s" as "as much bandwidth as you can 24/7 always". Nothing with capacity issues works this way.

If everyone decided to run every electrical device 24/7 always, it would bring down the power system. Even if you pay for the electricity, you brought down the infrastructure so you can't use it. The power companies don't advertise the limits, but they exist. Same goes for roads, if there is traffic, I have no implicit right to be able to drive 60 everywhere at all times. They are not required to go build more highways because I wish to do so, as it just doesn't make financial sense.

Using simple logic on the contract wording of "up to **mbits/s" implies that using (**-0.01) mbits/s for 24/7 is still acceptable and covered under the contract.

You also do not seem to take into account the general condition of municipal monopoly on Internet providers, where if one does not like the service of their provider, their other option is *no wired internet*. Capitalism would normally create smaller companies for competition, this would drive down prices and completely kill off the power abuse as seen here. Unfortunately, as you have inferred about act of congress and laying down trunk lines, it is unlikely that the current situation of monopoly will change. Now it is up to the government to do something about net neutrality and keep the companies from exploiting the monopoly that the government set up for them... Of course all of this will use your tax money to do, so you lose no matter what happens. gg.

I'm sorry, but you sound like a corporate mouthpiece. The problem with the argument of "you accept the terms of service" is that the consumer has no choice if they want service at all. This is why laws that protect the consumer have to be in place.The language itself should be outlawed in the advertisements. "Up to XXX mbits/s" could actually deliver dialup speeds and be well within their contract, technically.The rest of your argument makes no sense because you DO use electricity 24/7, number one, and number two, this is data transfer. It's closer to having your TV on 24/7 and watching cable the whole time.

New plan will not come into effect until after billing cycles. Right now they're making people aware that, if you stay, there will be a cap if you're someone who uses a substantial amount of bandwidth. At that point you're free to leave the service if you do not agree to the terms.

They're not stealing from you. They're just being greedy and leveraging their position. At the same time, the cost of sustaining the network to please the top percentage of bandwidth users is very high, with zero return and essentially zero performance benefits for the average user.

AT&T is a defacto monopoly in many areas and only competes against a single cable provider in the rest. Only a few select areas of the nation have FiOS available as a third competitor. Because they are defacto monopoly they cannot arbitrarily change policy / pricing without local government approval. Unfortunately, our Federal government is bought and paid for so nothing will stop these monopolists from doing this.

The key option is to allow communities to errect and operate their own data networks - but apparently they can't stand up to the legal attacks from providers if anyone recalls that community in North Carolina that did just that when their providers wouldn't service them very well.

quote: How about receiving you have paid for? Is it a crime against humanity to expect a company to live up to a service that it was certainly willing to sell? If AT&T has to cap its bandwidth, then that's fine. Just don't sell it to your customers as something entirely different.

That's exactly what they're doing - they are making it so they're not selling it to their customers as something entirely different. They used to sell the service without specifying how much total bandwidth you could use in a month. Now they're saying up-front that you can only use 150 or 250 GB in a month.

It sucks for the folks who signed up when there were no such limits. But I'm willing to bet their contract is worded so the ISP can unilaterally modify the terms like this. ISPs got wise to avoiding binding contracts which committed them to unlimited service back in the 1990s.

The real issue is ISPs advertising unlimited usage, then in the fine print of the contract slipping in that they can cap your usage, thus making it limited. That's false advertisement and the FTC needs to crack down on it. But I see it as a Good Thing that ISPs are finally deciding to be up-front and honest about just how much bandwidth they'll let you use. At least it's not like the BS Comcast pulled where they made a limit, but they wouldn't tell you what the limit was nor how close you were to it, and they'd terminate your service if you exceeded it.

I understand that all ISP have to oversell their network to make more profit, as most of the people just checking emails and looking at web sites. those people don't use a lot of oomph.

but I've seen some ISP over sold lines to a ratio of 1:2000, people complain but they don't give a shit, the map shows utilization is like 90% even at off peak hours ~ think of what will happen during "BUSY" hours. drop packets all the time.

there are a lot of unuse ports in the cabinet, and honestly its not that expensive, but again they don't give a shit. Lag what? Just wait, you will get your data. jesus.

AT&T(Cingular) is just a f-king greedy company, simple as that, they are monopoly in a lot of metro areas. I just feel great that I don't have to use them.

I'm using FiOS and up to now do not have to worry about bullshit like this. I'm paying a bit of a premium for my 35/35 Mbps service but I get the speeds in both directions and can sustain them. I do not utilize my network 24/7 but I do transfer a lot more than 50 GB in both directions each month.

I think your logic is flawed. This is the Zionist movement of the west and the corporate entities exploiting once again, their greed for more money. The reason your statement is flawed is these companies know it is a business model that won't exactly affect us too much now, hoever, in 5 years from now, when we use exponentially use more data then we do now, it will severely limit our abilities. I do not agree with capping, it is yet another freedom that is being taken away. People have been abusing the bandwith for eyars, there's no reason to make evryone else pay for it. I will reject any ISP and switch my service effective immediately upon any notice of capping. They will lose more money if this will be the case as hopefully people will speak with their wallets and money ALWAYS speaks!

I've read the back and forth on this between Gzus666 and those with an opposing point of view, which has degenerated to a very childlike level of pissing match in both directions and here is the disconnect as I see it.

Both parties are right in their own respect.

Gzus666 is entirely correct in stating that no network is designed nor can be designed to let each individual user go full blast 24/7 on their connection at the same time. It simply is not financially possible.

Does this change the fact that big companies like AT&T are greedy corporate entities? No, they definitely are, and sure, they could even be more efficient at the ratio of what they offer the customer as opposed to their profit margin.

However... Lets assume that they managed to take in just enough profit to survive as a company. Lets assume they were the most altruistic and wonderful group of human beings on the planet and that the executives didn't take huge bonuses, that they barely scraped by as a company and every employee was on a modest salary that everyone here approved of...

The end result would be that they still would not be able to offer the kind of network that allows you to go full blast 24/7 and download a terabyte of crap every month. They could give you more yes, but they could never satisfy what you feel you are entitled too. There-in lies the problem, the disconnect.

As far as the argument from an advertising standpoint goes, If these companies want customers they have to tell them things they want to hear. That's advertising. When I read advertisements I always read them with a grain of salt. I do this because I also write advertisements. Flat Outright lying advertisement I will agree is bad, but in honesty you will find very very little of actual bald face lying in advertisement. It's a game of stretching the truth to put you in the best light, and why do you do it? Because the competition does, and if you don't compete, you go out of business.

And its fool network techs that think companies imposing these actions is also the right thing to do.

1. Selling something to a person which these customers PAY FOR <<< Note they pay for a internet that every one is told you have X upload speed and Y download speed for Z monthly dollars is a typical contract.

In no place in any residential contract does it stipulate an data capacity limit ???

So for the ISP selling a unlimited line to customers, then asking them to pay a fee or fine to those that happen to use more then others is simply wrong.

Clearly the IPS's are at fault here and this shows they abuse customers for their business mistakes.

When you buy a cell phone you are sold monthly minutes, we understand the limits of such, sure.

Sold it upfront with a data cap, then yes the enduser is at fault and will be aware fees are due, but adding that after you sold them services is breach of contract, since no such words were told when they installed the service to such persons homes upfront. So a person fully ustilizing a line which no limitations where ever implied or signed for on the contract, is wrong of ISP's to do this, its breach of ocntract and illegal. But most endusers cant afford to legally go up agaisnt big companies so, in the end they will get stuck paying for it even though they dont deserve deserve to have their contract changed without consent.

Now the consumer is forced to quit or pay more, and the long run the businesses know they will win over time since this is the only recourse most have. They move on, and a new ISP will only give em a new contract with such fees up front, so they cant hold their original contract in place. Users will be forced one way or another to pay more regardless of usage terms originally agreed upon.

ISP's will just cancel them, then if they try to get service they will be subjected to new contract, since the original no limit contract got cancelled. The IPS will make the contract change to a person weather they like it or not. Every legal loop hole in the book will be abused by them to enforce new fees for their services, upon changing contract rules as they want to, the consumer is helpless upon big corporations enforcing contract rule changes without agreement. The big corps 99.99% always win and get there way one way or another in these cases.

They will just cancel the person, then the home user has zero recurse of action for when the IPS breaches its original contract, by selling them the unlimited line in the 1st place. Thats the ISP's fault not a person whom downloads alot all day, as they sold them the unlimited line t begin with, if they dont like it being fully utilized then they should never have sold it as such up front.

Last time I checked, each evening, ALL THE HOUSES in my area have the lights on :) This means that the utility has a network which meets the demand, and each time new buildings are build, the power guys are adding transformers and new high voltage lines, as needed. True, I have a meter, and I pay for usage, BUT because the power company has a local monopoly, their rates are REGULATED and they cannot charge whatever their shareholders would like. They also GUARANTEE service levels for what they sell. If I loose service, I can get a check for the spoiled food in my freezer (yep, you have to file a claim, document your losses, but they pay).

If ATT wants us to pay for usage, their rates WILL be subject to local cost controls, and their selection of the same 250GB for a cap is too close to the Comcast cap number (also 250GB) not to rise some anti-competitive concerns.

Internet access is becoming an utility, and it is only a matter of time until it is regulated and billed as such, BUT I think that rates need to be in line with real costs, like rates for water, electricity and garbage collection, not with CEO's bonus targets....

Correct. Companies don't sell bandwidth with the intention of providing it 100% of the time. In fact, AT&T clearly states that you'll get up to X Mbps. Phone companies, internet companies, and other companies dealing with such networks first decide at what probability they wish to maintain their service. I.E. What percentage of time do I have to maintain services at or near the specifications before my customers come head hunting. They then use stochastic models to see how much bandwidth they can sell on the network infrastructure before crossing that line.

The problem is that marketing and management tend to arbitrarily adjust these precisely calculated figures to their liking. On top of that, they are neither willing to leave a reasonable amount of bandwidth unallocated for potential customers nor willing to turn away customers once their limit is reached until they can expand their infrastructure. The perception of overselling bandwidth comes from setting the probability too low and/or taking on customers they are ill-equipped to handle (even if only temporarily).

The other major (in my opinion much larger) issue people have is the fact that bandwidth caps are double dipping. Your road example is a good one. It should be expected that there will be times of congestion, though this is much easier to alleviate on networks given the available tools. However, I'm fairly certain we would see more than a little public dissension if we were suddenly told we could only drive 1500 miles a month before incurring fines. They might say things like 2% of people drive 20% of the distance on roads, but that isn't going to mean much to the guy who lives 40 miles from work. Also, this makes no concession for temporarily high usage. I.E. roadtrips become more problematic.

I don't even agree with the idea of metered service in the first place. Utility companies own the utility they are metering. They basically charge you X amount for their product + some fixed cost to facilitate delivery and maintenance of said product. Since the internet company doesn't own the data you are transferring over the pipes, I have issue with them charging anything more than the delivery and maintenance.

What on earth could a residential user do that would use a connection at full speed 24/7 the is a) remotely useful and b) legal?

However, regardless of what purpose is being served, As Gzuz666 has already stated (and I agree), there is no possible business model that could ever sustain this type of usage. Just look at the land line phone system, cellular service, electrical service and the list goes on. None of these services would ever be able to handle anyone using the maximum potential 24/7.

I can talk on my cell phone 24/7 and Sprint can definitely handle it. I use my electricity 24/7 and StarTex can definitely handle it. What's the point to your post? If you advertise using your service to watch streaming video, playing rock band with my buddies over our web cams, downloading files at the fastest speed then I got every right to expect that service to continue. Can't provide the service that you advertised? Lower the price and let me out of my contract.

Funny thing... I had a dream last night that an AT&T rep was at my home and convinced me to switch to their services at a big discount. Thankfully it was all a dream.

quote: I can talk on my cell phone 24/7 and Sprint can definitely handle it.

Until you have multiple people on the same tower doing it, then the tower gets overloaded and someone drops.

quote: I use my electricity 24/7 and StarTex can definitely handle it.

Until everyone near you does it and the power company can't keep up or the grid fails and you have a blackout. But hey, it is fine as long as you get what you want, right?

You have no right to expect to take down a network cause you want to download everything. You aren't breaking 250GB caps doing web streaming and downloading files fast. It is done by downloading tons of files non stop every day. You take up bandwidth for an entire neighborhood. It isn't as easy as just throwing money at something, if you had any concept of how carrier networks worked, you would get this.

If you think AT&T will be the last to do this, you are wrong. They will all do this soon as they try to get rid of the bandwidth hogs. We all pay for the greed of a few, same as every other thing in history.

Hey Mr. Network genius, you do realize how easy it is to surpass 250gb of monthly traffic downloading files you legally purchased, streaming Netflix movies and video conferencing your pals (as is done in the AT&T commercials -- all for one low monthly price)? Hmmmmm?

The problem with these companies is that they are encouraging folks to use their technology is just the way that they are now trying to discourage. Of course I don't believe that in the least. It's just an attempt to get more cash and still provide the same product. All the while they aren't upgrading their network. Yeah, yeah... their poor pipeline can't sustain the kind of traffic that they advertise. Boo hoo. Hand me my box of kleenex. Poor ol' AT&T. They just need the $$ so that they can improve those pipes that carry the internets. LOL

Just be glad we have what we have here. I chat with a friend in Russia and every so often they are disconnected. I asked once what happens, and they said in Russia you pay by the MB not speed. So like a pay phone, once you hit the limit you are cut off until you pay for more. It would really stink here to be in the middle of watching your movie or downloading a song and be cut off until you pay for more.

quote: We all pay for the greed of a few, same as every other thing in history.

Not in this case. Belive me i'm a proponent of the fact we pay for alot of greed in this world but in this instance, you pay because of poor govermental judgement.

I live in holland. Here, government not only stimulated the expansion of the physical network, but at a point forced the dominant carriers to open up their network to more competition. Eventually every small company got bought up and merged again, but the above worked long enough to get the competition mindset going (first between carriers then between technologies).

The result? There's no data caps here across the board, and never have been. And thanks to competition, the investment in new ADSL like technologies has promoted the cable companies to use new technology themselves. Currently, there's only 1 cable company left, i subscribe with them.

For $100 a month, i get a package of digital TV, telephone (voip, works great tho) and internet. TV consists of 30 digital and 60 analog channels, and i got the additional HDTV package, 6 euro's for bout 10 channels in 1080i quality (HDTV got off slow here but later this year their expanding the selection for the same amount i pay now). The phone costs are very small and a nice extra.

And internet, get this, no data limit, unlimited 30 day acess to the ISP's own newsservers (4mb/s cap on downloadspeed due to connection cap though). a 120 Mbit download speed, and i checked this, that's a theoretical limit of 15mb/s and i can get 14,6 mb/s stable, if the other side can upload it. uploadwise i've got 10mbit, though i've noticed this is still a little clunky (this new tech is just beeing rolled out) so i've only seen around 750kb/s of the 1.25mb/s it can do. But also, unlimited. I'm also allowed to run a server, as are just about all connections here.

This is the current cable awnser to 50mb/s VDSL2 and fibre connections. I'd expect those to increase in a while in response to this new cable tech.

Really i can rip on government all day for the poor decisions they make every day but for my country, this definitly wasn't one of them. For yours, they couldn't possibly have made it worse then they did, other then banning it outright. The technology to handle it is already here. The japansese have frickin announced they wanna get 10gbps to every home, because 1gbs isn't enough!

It's not that 1 out of 20 people uses too much. It's that 19/20 people like getting F'ed in the A.

PS, i laugh at your 250gb cap. If i dowload not 24/7 but just 24 hours i can rake in 1200gb. If that's an option there's no way your going to have anybody downloading 24/7. that harddrive capacity doesn't exist, or is far too expensive for consumers.

My point is not whether it works for one person. I would expect that. The point is that there is no way the infrastructure would handle EVERY customer using the service to the full capability 24/7. If everyone on your block/community used the FULL capacity of the electrical service in their houses, chances are that StarTex would have some issues...again, it is not about 1 person being able to utilize the full potential, it is about everyone being able to.

The assumption that is made (whether right or wrong) that allows the system to function is that for every person that wants to play rockband over the web all night, there is also a grandma that only want to get her 3 emails a day. Averaging this usage allows the system to work.

If you are lucky you have only two choices cable internet or dsl. Lots of people only have one choice so the competition argument doesn't really work. There have been rural communities that were frustrated by the lack of service so set up their own government operated system and then have been sued by the telecoms. Nope, corporation do not like competition.